b
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the applicant respectfully traverses the foregoing and submits that the Office has not properly undertaken the Alice test. The applicant further discloses that it is evident to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the elimination of such sensor stations reduces the cost of the system as a whole.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106 (I) discloses the the two criteria for subject matter eligibility:
The claimed invention must be one of the four statutory categories, in this case, a process.
The claimed invention also must quantify as patent-eligible subject matter i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception (which it does not and can be summarized in the analysis in the previous rejections
Direct from the same section of the MPEP (2106(I)) recites: The Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination.
Step 1: Was determined is a process.
Step 2A: Was determined is an Abstract Idea
Step 2B: Was determined that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Therefore, it was determined that the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Analysis of Claim 17:
A method for calculating real-time immission values at locations within an area of interest, the method comprising:
providing, to a processing unit, an emission dispersion model with real-time information on one or more mobile emitters which are within the area of interest received by the processing unit from a dynamic data feed,
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with respective emission characteristics of the one or more mobile emitters by the dynamic data feed,
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with information comprising influencing environmental factors on emission dispersion for an environment within the area of interest by a database;
Examiner’s Note: the three limitations that have been italicized are considered by MPEP 2106.06(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity. More specifically, pre-solution activity that is mere data manipulation and outputting (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A processing unit is being fed data from generic machines/processors (dynamic data feed, mobile emitters, sensors, etc.), manipulating said data (inputting data into models) and outputting it in a visual format. This is further emphasized by the last two limitations:
calculating, by the processing unit, real-time immission values at locations within the area
of interest based on the emission dispersion model (Considered by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) as a mathematical concept, more specifically, mathematical calculations); and
visualizing, by a visualization engine and a user front end, the calculated real- time
immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set, wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters (Considered by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) as a mental process.
Claim 34 suffers from similar deficiencies and is therefore, rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 32 and 33 disclose “a computer program product” which fails to fall under either of the four categories of statutory subject matter and is therefore, patent ineligible.
It is for these reasons, the examiner maintain the rejection.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant discloses that there is no disclosure, or suggestion, as to how the output could be converted into a visualization, let alone a thematic map or immission rater data set and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Beckman and Hegner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hegner alone teaches this limitation. Page 89 lines 19 – page 91 disclose flight simulations along with trajectories and noise pollution maps, all items that are superimposed and displayed on a client device 121. These calculations and simulations can also be performed in real-time page 88 line 22 – pg. 89 line 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude this as visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the AOI in 2D/3D as a thematic map.
It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-27 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 17 recites:
A method for calculating real-time immission values at locations within an area of interest, the method comprising: providing, to a processing unit, an emission dispersion model with real-time information on one or more mobile emitters which are within the area of interest, providing, to a processing unit, the emission dispersion model with respective emission characteristics of the one or more mobile emitters, providing, to a processing unit, the emission dispersion model with information comprising influencing environmental factors on emission dispersion for an environment within the area of interest by a database; calculating, by the processing unit, real-time immission values at locations within the area of interest based on the emission dispersion model; and visualizing, by a visualization engine and a user front end, the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set, wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “calculating, by the processing unit, real-time immission values at locations within the area of interest based on the emission dispersion model” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, whereas “visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set,” belongs to mental processing group.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 34.
Claims 32 and 33 disclose “a computer program product” which fails to fall under either of the four categories of statutory subject matter and is therefore, patent ineligible.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 17: processing unit, mobile emitter
In Claim 34: a processing unit, mobile emitter,
The additional element in the preamble of “a mobile emitter represents a mere data gathering/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A processing unit (generic processor) is generally recited and is not qualified as a particular machine.
An Examiner’s Note regarding the following limitations is provided below:
“providing, to a processing unit, an emission dispersion model with real-time information on one or more mobile emitters which are within the area of interest received by the processing unit from a dynamic data feed,
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with respective emission characteristics of the one or more mobile emitters by the dynamic data feed,
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with information comprising influencing environmental factors on emission dispersion for an environment within the area of interest by a database”
Examiner’s Note: the three limitations that have been italicized are considered by MPEP 2106.06(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity. More specifically, pre-solution activity that is mere data manipulation and outputting (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A processing unit is being fed data from generic machines/processors (dynamic data feed, mobile emitters, sensors, etc.), manipulating said data (inputting data into models) and outputting it in a visual format.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 18-27 and 30-35 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
.Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-27 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegner et al. (WO2018/178809A1, 04-10-2018), herein referred to as Hegner, in view of Beckman et al. (US20180040316A1, 02-24-2011), herein referred to as Beckman.
Regarding Claim 17, Hegner teaches a method for calculating real-time emission values at locations within an area of interest (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8), the method comprising:
providing, to a processing unit an emission dispersion model with real-time information on one or more mobile emitters which are within the area of interest received by the processing unit from a dynamic data feed (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8, Fig. 39; pg. 90, lines 3-17),
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with respective emission characteristics of the one or more mobile emitters by the dynamic feed (page 88, lines 2-6),
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with information comprising influencing environmental factors on emission dispersion for an environment within the area of interest by a database (Claims 11-13);
calculating, by the processing unit, real-time emission values at locations within the area of interest based on the emission dispersion model (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8).
Hegner doesn’t specifically teach “visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set, wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters”.
However, Page 89 lines 19 – page 91 disclose flight simulations along with trajectories and noise pollution maps, all items that are superimposed and displayed on a client device 121. These calculations and simulations can also be performed in real-time page 88 line 22 – pg. 89 line 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude this as visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the AOI in 2D/3D as a thematic map.
Hegner is silent to “based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters.”
However, in a related field, Beckman teaches wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters [0031-0033; 0044; 0081] [Fig. 6]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hegner to incorporate the teachings of Beckman by including: visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set in order to predict or give real-time feedback to pilots on the flight deck as to the effectiveness of any noise and emission abatement or reduction procedures that may be utilized for a specific set of conditions and desired operational settings.
Regarding Claim 18, Hegner teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the information comprises first data and second data, wherein the first data is dynamic data and the second data is static data, wherein the dynamic data is assumed as changing over time, and wherein the static data is assumed as not changing over time (Hegner: Claims 11-13).
Regarding Claim 19, The combination teaches the method according to claim 18. The combination further teaches wherein the first data comprises at least one of weather data, air traffic data, vehicle position data for different phases of movement, or population data (Hegner: Claims 11-13).
Regarding Claim 20, The combination teaches the method according to claim 19. The combination further teaches wherein the different phases of movement comprise a climb phase of respective types or classes of the one or more mobile emitters (Hegner: Claims 11-13).
Regarding Claim 21, The combination teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the second data comprises at least part of the at least one of weather data, land cover data or terrain data (Hegner: Claims 11-13).
Regarding Claim 22, The combination teaches the method according to claim 18. The combination further teaches wherein at least one of the first data comprises information regarding a respective operational state of the one or more mobile emitters, the first data is transmitted by the respective one or more mobile emitters, or the information regarding the respective operational state of the one or more mobile emitters is calculated from a respective trajectory of the one or more mobile emitters (Hegner: page 64, line 17 through page 65, line 11).
Regarding Claim 23, The combination teaches the method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the respective operation state comprises thrust and flap settings or landing gear in or out of an aircraft comprising the one or more mobile emitters (Hegner: page 64, line 17 through page 65, line 11).
Regarding Claim 24, The combination teaches the method according to claim 23. The combination further teaches wherein the real-time information comprises respective vehicle trajectory data of the one or more mobile emitters (Hegner: page 64, line 17 through page 65, line 11).
Regarding Claim 25, The combination teaches the method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the area of interest comprises at least one of at least an airport or at least a vicinity of the airport (Hegner: page 88, line 23 through page 89, line 8).
Regarding Claim 26, The combination teaches the method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein, before the calculating the real-time immission values, an atmospheric attenuation model is constructed, and wherein the atmospheric attenuation model is used in calculating the real-time immission values (Hegner: page 82 line 18 - page 83 line 20; page 88 line 23 - page 89 line 8).
Regarding Claim 27, The combination teaches the method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the locations within the area of interest construct a dispersion map, wherein the dispersion map comprises the calculated immission values at the locations within the area of interest, and wherein the locations form a mesh with calculated immission values. (Hegner: page 91 lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 29, The combination teaches The method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the method further comprises visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set (Hegner: page 91 lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the visualizing comprises continuously visualizing a video representing the calculated real-time immission values (Beckman: [0031-0032; 0081].
Regarding Claim 32, The combination teaches a computer program product comprising program code portions for carrying out a method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches when the computer program product is executed on one or more processing units (Hegner: Abstract, (pg. 90, lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 33, The combination teaches the computer program product of claim 32. The combination further teaches stored on one or more computer readable storage media (Hegner: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 34, Hegner teaches a system for calculating real-time emission values at locations within an area of interest (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8), the method comprising: providing, to a processing unit an emission dispersion model with real-time information on one or more mobile emitters which are within the area of interest received by the processing unit from a dynamic data feed (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8, Fig. 39; pg. 90, lines 3-17),
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with respective emission characteristics of the one or more mobile emitters by the dynamic feed (page 88, lines 2-6),
providing, to the processing unit, the emission dispersion model with information comprising influencing environmental factors on emission dispersion for an environment within the area of interest by a database (Claims 11-13);
calculating, by the processing unit, real-time emission values at locations within the area of interest based on the emission dispersion model (page 88, lines 23-25 and page 89, lines 1-8).
Hegner doesn’t specifically teach “visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set, wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters”.
However, Page 89 lines 19 – page 91 disclose flight simulations along with trajectories and noise pollution maps, all items that are superimposed and displayed on a client device 121. These calculations and simulations can also be performed in real-time page 88 line 22 – pg. 89 line 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude this as visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the AOI in 2D/3D as a thematic map.
Hegner is silent to “based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters.”
However, in a related field, Beckman teaches wherein the emission dispersion model is based on a neuronal network model which has been trained by at least one of training data obtained by acoustic sensors or by training data comprising information on emission of the one or more mobile emitters [0031-0033; 0044; 0081] [Fig. 6]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hegner to incorporate the teachings of Beckman by including: visualizing the calculated real-time immission values at the locations within the area of interest in two or three dimensions as a thematic map or immission raster data set in order to predict or give real-time feedback to pilots on the flight deck as to the effectiveness of any noise and emission abatement or reduction procedures that may be utilized for a specific set of conditions and desired operational settings.
Regarding Claim 35, The combination teaches the method according to claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the mobile emitters comprise vehicles (Hegner: Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lisa Caputo can be reached at (571) 272-2388. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights